2.4 or 2.5ghz mac for M8 files ?

[proenca]

Hi there,

I'm torn between two macintosh'es -

I have an option of buying a 17" Macbook Pro with 2.4 ghz ( 3mb cache on cpu ) AND with the high def display ( 1900x1200 ) , 256mb video memory

or a 17" Macbook Pro with 2.5 ghz ( 6mb cache cpu ) with "normal" 1680x1024 display, 512mb video memory

I mainly use it as a processing workhorse ( i want a laptop again, Im using a iMac 2.0ghz for that now that I-m selling to a friend ) but I dont know which to choose ( im buying refurb )

I process in Lightroom 90% of the stuff, sometimes some PS3 but very rarely. Both macs come with 4GB ram, and Im concerned that the 2.4 model has "only" 3mb on cpu cache - the bigger plus is the HD display for working on it.

I guess that video memory ( I dont do games honestly ) is secondary here ?

I process only M8 DNG's files.

Ideas ?

ps > 15" no go, I prefer a 17" .

[Ken R]

I have been using the Mac Pro 2.6 high res for this and it works amazingly fast and even rivals my desk top dual processor machine. I would go for as much processor speed as you can afford.

Ken

[girphoto]

Originally Posted by proenca

Hi there,

I'm torn between two macintosh'es -

I have an option of buying a 17" Macbook Pro with 2.4 ghz ( 3mb cache on cpu ) AND with the high def display ( 1900x1200 ) , 256mb video memory

or a 17" Macbook Pro with 2.5 ghz ( 6mb cache cpu ) with "normal" 1680x1024 display, 512mb video memory

I mainly use it as a processing workhorse ( i want a laptop again, Im using a iMac 2.0ghz for that now that I-m selling to a friend ) but I dont know which to choose ( im buying refurb )

I process in Lightroom 90% of the stuff, sometimes some PS3 but very rarely. Both macs come with 4GB ram, and Im concerned that the 2.4 model has "only" 3mb on cpu cache - the bigger plus is the HD display for working on it.

I guess that video memory ( I dont do games honestly ) is secondary here ?

I process only M8 DNG's files.

Ideas ?

ps > 15" no go, I prefer a 17" .

The MAC PRO 2.4 with 4 gifs of RAM (very important) will process the images. I use it every day and handle about 300 to 500 RAW images a day. This is both Leica and Canon (RAW).
Use the Photoshop CS3 RAW processor and you should have no problems. As a front end to photoshop use Photo Mechanic Ver 4.5.3.1 (works with both)
Have Fun
Gary
GIRPHOTO

[benkelley]

With apple, it's usually cheapest to go with the base memory configuration, then max out the memory from a 3rd party, such as owc. You can usually save some money that way, and it may be easier to get both the fast processor and the high-def display. If you're handy you can do the same with the hard drive–2.5" drives aren't so expensive–you should be able to get at $320 gig 5400 rpm for less than $130–I don't even see that as an option at apple.

Looking at the refurb units on apple, they all come with 2gb memory. Not having any experience with the high-def displays, if you want that I'd say don't worry about .1 ghz and spend the extra on memory. It'll make a much much much bigger difference, ESPECIALLY working with big image files.

Ben

p.s. Here's an example from the US Mac refurb page (store.apple.com and scroll down on the left side).

Refurbished MacBook Pro 2.5GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
17-inch high-resolution widescreen display
2GB memory
250GB hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 512MB of GDDR3 memory
Built-in iSight Camera
Learn More

• Save 14% off the original price
Original price: $2,899.00
Your price: $2,499.00
Estimated Ship:
3-5 business days
Free Shipping

p.p.s. Sometimes you can trade in old memory if you're buying from one of the 3rd party resellers.

[photolandscape]

I am still happily chugging along with an original G5 tower with 1.6gHz single processor and 2.5GB of RAM. It can handle anything I throw at it in the way of photo files using CS3 and Lightroom. The difference between 2.4 gHz and 2.5 gHz should be negligible, and sometimes I've read reports indicating that some computers occasionally run faster despite having a slightly slower processor, depending on RAM and software in question.

[sagarwal]

Originally Posted by proenca

Im concerned that the 2.4 model has "only" 3mb on cpu cache

I believe the cache is for program instructions, not for caching images. Also, image manipulation programs use much larger amounts of memory than an L2 cache can provide anyway. Only a well designed program will try to take advantage of the benefits of a large L2 cache. I would just ignore that cache value and base my decision on other factors, like RAM and video memory, in that order.

Originally Posted by proenca

I guess that video memory ( I dont do games honestly ) is secondary here ?

256MB should be sufficient. Never hurts to have more memory, though, if the graphic card driver can use it.

[johnkuo]

Some applications such as Aperture actually uses video memory, so 512MB would be helpful.

[35mmSummicron]

I use the current 2.5ghz 17" macbook pro, 4gigs ram, HD display. My main work drive is a eSATA RAID that I connect via express34 card. For M8 files, it is FAST!!!!!

I think either configurations you're looking at are good. Neither the CPU or the vidram differences will really give a huge boost. the main differences is probably the additional cache, and the HD display which admitting is REALLY, REALLY, REALLY nice!

The main thing is max out your ram (try not to buy direct from Apple as they overcharge).

Also something to consider is that Apple is rumored to announce new laptops as soon as Aug/Sept. with the recent quad-core mobile centrino2 chips intel unveiled along with a complete redesign......

Either way, I'm not upgrading as I'm super happy with my 17" as it is......

hope this helps.

/a

[mmk60]

I had the same self debate, 2.4 or 2.5, when I was considering upgrading my powerbook to a 15" MBP. I went to a local Apple Store and compared both side by side, running my sample M8 file (16bit PSD file) in CS3. A store employee helped me run both machines simultaneously, opening, unsharpening the file, etc..... "3, 2, 1 click!"... haha!

The difference in performance was really negligible....

By the way, that HD display looked awesome! but things appeared very very small... Very hard to my old eyes. Of course, we can change its resolution to make things appear larger but then what is the point....

I was at one point considering getting a 17" MBP but that thing is massive! I found it way too big for my body size...

If you are not in a hurry getting one, you may want to wait until the new one comes out (soon) and see if you like it better. I am afraid that the price will be higher.


Have fun!

[benkelley]

Originally Posted by mmk60

If you are not in a hurry getting one, you may want to wait until the new one comes out (soon) and see if you like it better. I am afraid that the price will be higher.

I wouldn't worry about a higher price... I doubt apple would raise prices in this economy, and rumor is that they're actually going to cut prices on the macbooks, so at least the pros will stay the same price. Anyway, you'll surely be able to get current models as refurbs after the refresh.

And regarding Aperture... though I don't use it, I thought that apple changed the software in 2.0 so it isn't as graphics-memory heavy. I could be wrong, though!!!

[proenca]

well thanks all for the options and feedback - I also tried comparing side by side the 2.4 and the 2.5 ( even the 2.6 ) and the difference is minimal - can see from the 2.4 to the 2.6 but its a pinch of a second.

So in the end, this is the baby I ordered and I'm waiting now :

Macbook PRO 17" HD 1900x1200 Glossy display
2.4 Intel Core 2 Duo
4gb ram ( well comes with 2gb which I'm going to throw on ebay, I ordered a 2x2gb from crucial.com )
200mb 7200rpm disk ( have 2 x 1TB on firewire with RAID so I thought that a fast little disk would be better instead of a bigger slow one - alas, have 2TB on raid for external already)
Good on the wallet - spoke with Apple on the phone and they said this was never opened, it sat on one of the Apple Stores and was never sold, now they are clearing the stock to make space to the new one - so basically new but with a good reduction in price : 1,300 GBP vs 1,900 GBP new.
And TONS of agony for the Royal Mail van to come

Oh well Thanks all again